Firms see value in teamwork under one roof

Donald Eggleston, president and principal with SERA Architects, is an advocate of colocation for big projects with short timelines. "If I have a question for someone, I will literally get up and ask them a question," Eggleston said. "I don't have to send an email or send a phone call and wonder when I'm going to hear back." (Photo by Sam Tenney/DJC)

When SERA Architects bid to design the Collaborative Life Sciences Building for the Oregon University System, the firm knew the project timeline was short. Design started in May, and the building needs to be ready for Portland State University staff by July 2013.

Donald Eggleston, SERA president and principal, believed there was only one way to get the work done on time.

“Because the Collaborative Life Sciences Building had a very short schedule, we put forth that the only way to do it was to be colocated,” Eggleston said.

In the colocation approach, other firms’ project representatives join SERA in its offices three days each week. Parties include: Day CPM, the owner’s representative; CO Architects, a partner project architecture firm; J.E. Dunn, contractor; and engineering firms KPFF and Interface Engineering. Some first-tier subcontractors also are participating.

“If you followed a normal Oregon University System process, you’d have two years to do design and bid the project,” Eggleston said. In this case, the team has two years to design and construct the entire building. Construction is slated to begin in October.

Colocation is rising in popularity, said Scott Kelsey, principal-in-charge for CO Architects. His firm, based in Los Angeles, works on higher education projects around the country, and often relocates teams.

The process can benefit such teams significantly, Kelsey said. For example, instead of receiving cost estimates from a contractor or an independent cost consultant at the end of each design phase, architects meet with contractors and consultants every one to two weeks to give “real-time feedback.”

“If I have a question for someone, I will literally get up and ask them a question,” Eggleston said. “I don’t have to send an email or send a phone call and wonder when I’m going to hear back.”

The downside, he added, is an increased number of meetings. The Collaborative Life Sciences Building project has spread throughout SERA’s office and takes up much of the conference space.

Representatives of partner firms working on the Collaborative Life Sciences building for OHSU and OSU meet in a colocation space at SERA Architects' office in Northwest Portland. Pictured in foreground, from left, are Arnold Swanborn of CO Architects, Carol Mayer-Reed of Mayer/Reed, Matt Piccone of SERA Architects, and Jon Dykhuizen of Mayer/Reed. (Photo courtesy of SERA Architects)

Project members say the benefits of colocation would be less for a project with a more traditional, linear timeline.

“If your project has a long, long schedule, there’s really no advantage,” Eggleston said. “Complexity is also an issue – on a simple apartment house with only a couple of consultants, there’s no advantage.”

For the Collaborative Life Sciences Building, however, SERA and CO architects are working with 12 consulting firms.

Many of the firms involved, and many members of those teams, want to participate. Unfortunately, not all of them can fit.

“The one thing that’s surprised me is how many people want to be in the colocate space,” Davis said. “We don’t have enough physical space.”

SERA’s first experience with colocation was in 2010, when it designed a major renovation of the Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt federal building. The process was introduced by the project owner, the General Services Administration.

Colocation shaved off between 15 and 27 months for the design phase, GSA supervisory project executive Pat Brunner said. That was essential, because that building renovation was paid for with federal stimulus money, which had an expiration date.

Technical issues for colocation projects such as the Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt and Collaborative Life Sciences buildings can create major headaches because representatives of multiple firms need to have computers that network with one another and can still communicate with home offices.

For the federal project, Brunner said the GSA spent more than $370,000 on technology so that the entire colocation team could work on the same Building Information Modeling system. He added that the move actually saved money for the fast-tracked project.

Another major challenge of the colocation approach focuses on culture. During the federal project, the GSA surveyed project team members to see how they were reacting to the unusual environment. While most people recognized benefits to colocation, some consistently gave negative feedback.

“Younger people are comfortable with collaboration and group work,” Brunner said. “The younger staff weren’t as wedded to a physical location and were much more adaptable.”

The GSA hasn’t used colocation frequently, but Brunner said he expects it to be used more in the future.

Colocation is, in a way, the next step of integrated project delivery.

“I think with the way the industry as a whole is moving towards fast-tracked schedules and more design-build or CM-GC-type processes, the colocate model is of tremendous benefit,” Davis said.